The media use of terminology such as the accused, the suspect..... does not seem to observe the principle of the presumption of innocence .
That is a really interesting question! I share your observation that the media (and public in general) appear to be somewhat unreliable in their respect for an accused person's right to presumption of innocence. It is also my observation, however, that the introduction of new phrasings and terminology can be confusing for readers. Perhaps a reasonable solution could be to use phrasing that very clearly communicate the tentative nature of the accusation (e.g., "accused," "alleged," "suspected"), accompanied by a footnote that includes the clarification(s) that you propose (i.e., "to be cleared or the presumed innocent").
In the UK the press may not report anything that is likely to prejudice the fairness of the trial. You are right however that those words are in themselves prejudicial and it is often the case that the general public associate 'accused' and suspect with guilt.
This a deeply engrained cultural problem. Even though those arrested have been considered innocent until proven guilty for centuries in the UK we still have some shameful reporting of innocent people. The Christopher Jeffries case is one of the worst in recent years.
We now have a scandal in the police tipping off the BBC before raiding the house of Cliff Richard. This gives him adverse publicity even before 'arrest' or questioning.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media